Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 3741 - 3760
of 4,555
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2011, 12:05 pm
Then came Chambers v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 10:19 am
Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses and facilities. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:08 pm
Uniloc v. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 12:02 pm
Environmental Protection Information Center, et al. v. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am
Justice BhatThe Delhi High Court in Shri Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr., has examined the concept of DNA testing and the law pertaining to the same. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 11:50 am
The Court upheld the poison pill based on the standards set forth in Unocal Corp. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 5:40 am
I decided to write about this one because the facts are a little different from those that have come up in prior cases . . . and because of precisely how the juror used the technology. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 5:26 pm
We hold that the statute unambiguously bans all solicitation for 48 hours and that this restriction on commercial speech violates Article I, § 4 of the Florida Constitution under the standards of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 1:15 pm
To resolve the apparent inconsistency, the Reporters suggest that courts adopt a different standard for expert witnesses to use, a “more likely than not” standard. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 8:15 am
EPA (No. 06-1322) and American Petroleum Institute v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:08 am
That is precisely what has happened to the employer in a case entitled Diaz v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:34 pm
My contribution to the con law professor roundtable I blogged about here consisted of a short piece that considered Citizens United, US v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:07 am
The tribunals have to determine the applicable law as a legal system of a particular country using standard conflict-of-laws methods and conflict-of-laws rules as prescribed by applicable lex arbitri or (if authorised by lex arbitri and/or by the parties themselves) to first determine the relevant choice-of-law methods and rules. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 12:07 pm
Part I opens with an abstract typology of criteria and constraints that might be used to define a detention standard at the individual level. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 10:33 am
Part I opens with an abstract typology of criteria and constraints that might be used to define a detention standard at the individual level. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 9:46 am
In NASA v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:17 pm
The Courts came to the same conclusion in Girling v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:17 pm
The Courts came to the same conclusion in Girling v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 6:17 am
New Jersey and Harris v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 4:48 am
Noting the very high threshold for review imposed by the Wednesbury test (see criticisms of this by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26,[2001] 2 AC 532 and the Strasbourg Court in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493, para. 138) the Committee considered that the application of a “proportionality principle” by the courts in E&W could provide an adequate standard of… [read post]
